THE NEW CLAUSE AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13906, 3 December 1910, Page 10

THE NEW CLAUSE AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE.

(SPECIAL TO ''THE PRESS.") WELLINGTON', December 2. When the Libel Bill was returned to the Hbuse, the Hon. J. A. Millar oxpTained that when certain matters were referred to in th© House recent!}*, it was stated that if a clause were •n----troduced to meet the case, it would 'jo pa-seed unanimously. Under the existing law a defendant had to prore t'.vo things—firstly, the truth of the statements, and secondly, that they were for tho public benefit. It was open to a defendant to attempt to prove either of these defences. As a rule tho attempt was made tn «rov«s the truth first, then when a defendant had thrown as much mud as possible, ho sometimes did not go any further. Now it was proposed that a defendant should bo compelled, to prove that the matter was for the public benefit. If he failed he was guilty of defamatory libel. If he were able to prove that it was in the public interest, then he would have to prove the truth of the statements. Betore one could bring an action one must submit the matter to a Magistrate. This was a fair wav to protect a man against, tho&o who hnd nothing to lose by defamation. Mr Aiassey said he sympathised with the object "of the clause, 'but ho thought it woujd .place too mwh power in the hands of "the Magistrates. The Magistrates were not independent in the same way as the Supreme Court Judges were/and therefore the people had less confidence in them. He thought the amendment Should be disagreed with, so that a conference could be held and Supreme Court Judges substituted for Magistrates. He would then like the clause to go further and apply to anybody who attempted to identify decent men with a defamatory libel. The new clause was agreed to.